Differentiation and proliferation of stem cells and progenitor cells are normal ongoing processes that act in concert to support tissue growth during organogenesis, cell repair and cell replacement. The system is tightly regulated to ensure that only appropriate signals are generated based on the needs of the organism. Cell proliferation and differentiation normally occur only as necessary for the replacement of damaged or dying cells or for growth. However, disruption of these processes can be triggered by many factors including the under- or overabundance of various signaling chemicals, the presence of altered microenvironments, genetic mutations or a combination thereof. Disruption of normal cellular proliferation and/or differentiation can lead to various disorders including proliferative diseases such as cancer.
Conventional treatments for cancer include chemotherapy, radiotherapy and immunotherapy. Often these treatments are ineffective and surgical resection may not provide a viable clinical alternative. Limitations in the current standard of care are particularly evident in those cases where patients undergo first line treatments and subsequently relapse. In such cases refractory tumors, often aggressive and incurable, frequently arise. The overall survival rates for many solid tumors have remained largely unchanged over the years due, at least in part, to the failure of existing therapies to prevent relapse, tumor recurrence and metastasis. Therapeutic constraints of currently available treatments have highlighted the need to develop new agents that effectively target tumorigenic cells and eliminate them with manageable collateral damage.
One promising area for the development of such agents and related treatments comprises targeted therapies using antibodies. In this regard antibody therapy has been established for the targeted treatment of patients with cancer, immunological and angiogenic disorders (Carter, P. (2006) Nature Reviews Immunology 6:343-357). More specifically, the use of antibody drug conjugates (i.e., ADCs or immunoconjugates) comprising a cell binding agent targeting component and a drug payload component for the localized delivery of cytotoxic or cytostatic agents has been shown to promote intracellular accumulation of the drug within the tumor cells. Such localization provides for relatively high concentrations of drug within the tumor whereas systemic administration of unconjugated (i.e., untargeted) drug to achieve the same tumor concentration may result in unacceptable levels of toxicity to normal cells (Xie et at (2006) Expert. Opin. Biol. Ther. 6(3):281-291; Kovtun et at (2006) Cancer Res. 66(6):3214-3121; Law et at (2006) Cancer Res. 66(4):2328-2337; Wu et at (2005) Nature Biotech. 23(9):1137-1145; Lambert J. (2005) Current Opin. in Pharmacol. 5:543-549; Hamann P. (2005) Expert Opin. Ther. Patents 15(9):1087-1103; Payne, G. (2003) Cancer Cell 3:207-212; Trail et at (2003) Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 52:328-337; Syrigos and Epenetos (1999) Anticancer Research 19:605-614).
From a clinical standpoint such antibody drug conjugates may thereby provide enhanced efficacy with a corresponding reduction in toxicity. Efforts to design and refine ADC have focused on the selectivity of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) as well as drug mechanism of action, conjugation techniques and linkers, drug/antibody ratio (loading) and drug-releasing properties (Junutula, et al., 2008b Nature Biotech., 26(8):925-932; Doman et at (2009) Blood 114(13):2721-2729; U.S. Pat. No. 7,521,541; U.S. Pat. No. 7,723,485; WO2009/052249; McDonagh (2006) Protein Eng. Design & Sel. 19(7): 299-307; Doronina et at (2006) Bioconj. Chem. 17:114-124; Erickson et at (2006) Cancer Res. 66(8):1-8; Sanderson et at (2005) Clin. Cancer Res. 11:843-852; Jeffrey et at (2005) J. Med. Chem. 48:1344-1358; Hamblett et at (2004) Clin. Cancer Res. 10:7063-7070). With regard to antibody selectivity and tumor localization a number of known tumor markers have proved to be ineffective ADC targets for a variety of reasons including low expression, lack of internalization, shedding, etc. The selection of suitable ADC drug constituents has also proved problematic in the past. Various agents have been proposed for use in ADC including drug moieties that impart cytotoxic and cytostatic effects by mechanisms including tubulin binding, DNA binding, proteasome and/or topoisomerase inhibition. Despite some success, certain cytotoxic drugs tend to be inactive or less active when conjugated to large antibodies or protein receptor ligands. Accordingly, selection of an appropriate targeting or cell binding agent and effective drug payload as ADC constituents are important for providing compounds exhibiting the desired clinical profile.
One class of compounds that has shown promise as potential ADC payloads are pyrrolobenzodiazepines (PBDs). In this regard PBDs have the ability to recognize and bond to specific sequences of DNA including the preferred sequence PuGPu. The first PBD antitumor antibiotic, anthramycin, was discovered in 1965 (Leimgruber, et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc., 87, 5793-5795 (1965); Leimgruber, et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc., 87, 5791-5793 (1965)). Since then, a number of naturally occurring PBDs have been reported, and over 10 synthetic routes have been developed to a variety of analogues (Thurston, et al., Chem. Rev. 1994, 433-465 (1994); Antonow, D. and Thurston, D. E., Chem. Rev. 2011 111 (4), 2815-2864). Family members include abbeymycin (Hochlowski, et al., J. Antibiotics, 40, 145-148 (1987)), chicamycin (Konishi, et al., J. Antibiotics, 37, 200-206 (1984)), DC-81 (Japanese Patent 58-180 487; Thurston, et al., Chem. Brit., 26, 767-772 (1990); Bose, et al., Tetrahedron, 48, 751-758 (1992)), mazethramycin (Kuminoto, et al., J. Antibiotics, 33, 665-667 (1980)), neothramycins A and B (Takeuchi, et al., J. Antibiotics, 29, 93-96 (1976)), porothramycin (Tsunakawa, et al., J. Antibiotics, 41, 1366-1373 (1988)), prothracarcin (Shimizu, et al, J. Antibiotics, 29, 2492-2503 (1982); Langley and Thurston, J. Org. Chem., 52, 91-97 (1987)), sibanomicin (DC-102)(Hara, et al., J. Antibiotics, 41, 702-704 (1988); Itoh, et al., J. Antibiotics, 41, 1281-1284 (1988)), sibiromycin (Leber, et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc., 110, 2992-2993 (1988)) and tomamycin (Arima, et al., J. Antibiotics, 25, 437-444 (1972)).
PBDs are of the general structure:

They differ in the number, type and position of substituents, in both their aromatic A rings and pyrrolo C rings, and in the degree of saturation of the C ring. In the B-ring there is either an imine (N═C), a carbinolamine (NH—CH(OH)), or a carbinolamine methyl ether (NH—CH(OMe)) at the N10-C11 position which is the electrophilic centre responsible for alkylating DNA. All of the known natural products have an (S)-configuration at the chiral C11a position which provides them with a right-handed twist when viewed from the C ring towards the A ring. This gives them the appropriate three-dimensional shape for isohelicity with the minor groove of B-form DNA, leading to a snug fit at the binding site (Kohn, In Antibiotics III. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 3-11 (1975); Hurley and Needham-VanDevanter, Acc. Chem. Res., 19, 230-237 (1986)). Their ability to form an adduct in the minor groove, enables them to interfere with DNA processing, hence their use as antitumor agents.
A particularly advantageous pyrrolobenzodiazepine compound is described by Gregson et al. (Chem. Commun. 1999, 797-798) as compound 1, and by Gregson et al. (J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44, 1161-1174) as compound 4a. This compound, also known as SG2000, is shown below:

WO 2007/085930 describes the preparation of dimer PBD compounds having linker groups for connection to a cell binding agent, such as an antibody. The linker is present in the bridge linking the monomer PBD units of the dimer.
WO 2011/130598 have describes dimer PBD compounds having linker groups for connection to a cell binding agent, such as an antibody. The linker in these compounds is attached to one of the available N10 positions and is preferably cleaved by action of an enzyme on the linker group.
While various PBD ADCs have shown promise for the treatment of certain proliferative disorders, there remains a need in the art for clinically effective targeted compounds and methods of use of such compounds to treat proliferative disorders.